Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

From: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date: 2017-11-03 07:46:20
Message-ID: 1509695180333-0.post@n3.nabble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

PMFJI

> We seem to have a few options for PG11
>
> 1. Do nothing, we reject MERGE
>
> 2. Implement MERGE for unique index situations only, attempting to
> avoid errors (Simon OP)
>
> 3. Implement MERGE, but without attempting to avoid concurrent ERRORs
> (Peter)
>
> 4. Implement MERGE, while attempting to avoid concurrent ERRORs in
> cases where that is possible.

From an end-users point of view I would prefer 3 (or 4 if that won't prevent
this from going into 11)

INSERT ... ON CONFLICT is great, but there are situations where the
restrictions can get in the way and it would be nice to have an alternative
- albeit with some (documented) drawbacks. As far as I know Oracle also
doesn't guarantee that MERGE is safe for concurrent use - you can still wind
up with a unique key violation.

--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-11-03 08:12:23 Re: dropping partitioned tables without CASCADE
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2017-11-03 07:44:16 Re: MERGE SQL Statement for PG11